The 2011 TED conference begins Tuesday in Long Beach CA. Of the 55 folks who will present “Ideas worth Spreading”, 15 of these speakers will be women.

That’s a whopping 27%… no improvement over previous years, and nowhere near gender parity.

To celebrate the 15 Women who will take the TED stage, and to encourage TED to #ChangeTheRatio so that a full half of TED presenters are women, I’m spending this week with the team at SheShouldTalkAtTED, advocating for #morevoices and gender parity on the TED stage.

Join us on Facebook, Twitter, the blogosphere, and in conversation, and in action.

What you can do:

• SHE Should Talk At TED: 5 Ways to Get Started

• Separate Still Isn’t Equal: Sexism among TED Conferences (at The Huffington Post)

• TEDWomen: Brilliant or Belittling?
  by Michelle Tripp at BrandForward

• Followup on the TEDWomen Conversation

• IS TEDWomen Sexist? Use the “Group Replacement Test” and tell us what you think

• Want More Women on Tech & TED Panels? Reject Meritocracy and Embrace Curation

• The Goal is Gender Parity — at TED and Beyond

• Advocating for Inclusion: A roundup of ideas from post-TEDx636 roundtable

• 15 Trailblazers Take The Stage (A Feminist’s Guide To TED 2011
  by Susan Mccaulay at Amazing Women Rock

• Building on TED & the TEDWomen Conference:
  How can _we_ make conferences more inclusive spaces?

• TEDWomen: Proving That Gender Does Not Determine Great Ideas
  By Linda Tarr-Whelen, at The Huffington Post

It’s not often that I get to follow up a post about an organization’s disappointing actions with a post celebrating that very organization’s next step. Given how easy it is to pay attention to and be outraged by the bad actions, it is all the more important to devote some energy to positive resolutions– so share this post!

Have you seen these headlines?

M·A·C to Donate its Global Profits from the M·A·C Rodarte Makeup Collection to Benefit Newly Created Women and Girls of Juarez Initiative

M·A·C and Rodarte apologize to the victims and their families in Juarez, the people of Mexico, the Mexican Government and concerned global citizens

MAC Cosmetics, the company that generated so much ill will with its thoughtless choice to name a cosmetics collection after the epicenter of femicide, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, has made a full apology.

MAC’s ultimate response addresses all five of the key components of successful apology (as outlined by John Kador, and summarized here):

• Recognize the offense
• Take responsibility
• Show remorse
• Make restitution
• Prevent repetition

MAC’s apology is effective because it contains all five of these components. But MAC’s apology goes even further:   MAC’s apology is authentic.

MAC’s Authentic Apology for the Ciudad Juarez Collection

MAC’s apology is authentic because MAC took went two steps beyond what’s “effective”:

1. MAC linked their apology to their collective identity and purpose, and

2. MAC designed into their organization an ongoing process of attention to and restitution for their offense.

Look at this excerpt from MAC’s apology:

“We are deeply sorry and apologize to everyone we offended, especially the victims, the women and girls of Juarez and their families. We have heard the response of concerned global citizens loud and clear and are doing our very best to right our wrong. The essence of M·A·C is to give back and care for the community and our initial handling of this makeup collection was not reflective of M·A·C’s values. M·A·C and Rodarte are committed to using these learnings to raise awareness on this important issue and to leverage our unique platform to help the women and girls of Juarez,” said M·A·C President John Demsey.

MAC’s Authentic Apology is linked to the organization’s identity

MAC’s official statement uses phrases like these to show a link to “who they are” as a company:

• The essence of MAC is to give back and care for the community
• Our initial handling … was not reflective of MAC’s values
• (We are) Committed to leverage our unique platform

Statements like these demonstrate that MAC understands that their offensive action was not only offensive in general, but also was offensive because it contradicted who MAC claims and wants to be as an organization.

MAC’s statements show that MAC is also apologizing for being inauthentic, and for damaging their stakeholders’ trust in them as an organization.

MAC’s Authentic Apology is built into the organization itself.

MAC has designed into its organization an ongoing process of awareness of and restitution for their offense.

Many blog posts and tweets about MAC’s Juarez Apology focus on just one component of MAC’s apology– their decision to donate all of the profits from the collection to initiatives to reduce violence against women in Ciudad Juarez. This is an important decision, but not as important as the way that MAC is implementing this decision.

MAC is building their restitution into MAC’s existing systems, relationships, and capabilities.

MAC is going to use the same process, the same stakeholder connections and the same expertise that they use to deliver their support for their well-regarded HIV/AIDS initiatives to deliver ongoing support to The Women and Girls of Juarez Initiative.

As the Facebook statement explains:

M·A·C has a longstanding tradition of service in Mexico, supporting important social causes in the country such as HIV prevention and treatment. Since 2002, the M·A·C AIDS Fund has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to local entities, including Fundación Eudes, La Casa de la Sal, A.C., Ser Humano, A.C., Mesón de la Misericordia Divina A.C., Pirana Studio, and Fundación Unidos por un México Vivo.

By building their support for the Women of Juarez into the organization itself, MAC accomplishes two things:

1. MAC makes sure that as an organization, it has a process for staying aware of issues related to violence against women, and

2. MAC makes their support ongoing (rather than just a one shot deal).

These actions demonstrate that MAC actually does care, and has made a commitment to continue to care, about violence against women.

You can expect that MAC’s apology is not superficial, because they themselves have connected their apology and their method of restitution to their core identity. MAC has reflected on its values, acknowledges that it has acted inauthentically with regard to its values, and demonstrated a renewed commitment to these values in their apology process and outcomes.

Let’s celebrate MAC’s authentic apology.

It is shameful that MAC didn’t catch this problem before it happened; it is admirable that they are working towards an authentic apology. An apology that is linked to MAC’s identity and built into MAC’s system is real, and it will make a real difference.

For more of the story of how beauty bloggers pushed MAC to apologize, see Healing Beauty’s posts, starting with  Success! MAC Rodarte to Donate ALL Profits to the Women of Juarez.

Gotta love those folks at Zappos. They screw up, they explain, they apologize, and they fix it.

And we applaud.

Why? Because Zappos’ actions support the company’s stated purpose, and Zappos’ actions support its claims about who they are as a company. It’s Authenticity in Action.

The Zappos’ Mistake Story in a Nutshell

An online pricing error at 6pm.com ( Zappos.com‘s outlet & clearance site) puts everything on the site, even Manolos, at $49.99 or less. The glitch goes unnoticed from midnight to 6am, when it is finally corrected. Despite the potential lost revenue,

Zappos decides not to take the official line in its own boilerplate in their Terms of Use:

(“In the event a product is listed at an incorrect price … due to error … we shall have the right to refuse or cancel any orders placed for product listed at the incorrect price.”)

Instead, Zappos gives its customers the benefit of the incorrect, lower price.

Aaron Magness, director of brand marketing at Zappos, wrote on their blog:

While we’re sure this was a great deal for customers, it was inadvertent, and we took a big loss (over $1.6 million – ouch) selling so many items so far under cost. However, it was our mistake. We will be honoring all purchases that took place on 6pm.com during our mess up.

In a postscript to that blog post, CEO Tony Hsieh:

- Explains the details that lead to the error,
- Admits that they were planning a system upgrade but hadn’t gotten there yet,
- Promises that the system was being fixed, and
- Assures us that no one involved was fired.

Zappos did some problem analysis, they identified the systemic issue, leaders took responsibility, and the problem was not blamed on the poor folks who made the coding error. That’s learning from mistakes, and that’s leadership.  And, for Zappos, it’s authentic behavior.

Authentic Actions Demonstrate Core Values

Their response to the pricing error is authentic behavior, because of how Zappos’ response demonstrates their commitment to their core values.

Specifically, the actions demonstrated value #7: Build Open and Honest Relationships With Communication.

“It’s important to always act with integrity in your relationships, to be compassionate, friendly, loyal, and to make sure that you do the right thing and treat your relationships well.”

Also, Zappos’ actions demonstrate another core value, value #1: Deliver WOW Through Service.

Nothing says ‘wow’ like honoring the mistaken price, even when you aren’t required to. Loyal Zappos’ customers may have gotten used to the occasional free overnight delivery, so that ‘wow’ might be tired. However, to have a business accept responsibility for its errors in a way that benefits the customer? That’s still rare, and remarkable.

Even Authentic Actions are Vulnerable

Some people did question the lag time between the discovery of the error, the posting of the explanation, the subsequent followup by the CEO, and Hsieh’s tweeting about the situation. Could the lagged tweeting and information sharing about the event have been intentional, to help Zappos take advantage of the mistake by generating (even) more positive press all the way into this week?

Certainly, the “free” publicity about the $1.6 million dollar mistake has generated some buzz for Zappos. It has also increased people’s awareness of the 6pm.com site/business itself — and so the whole situation can be seen as a $1.6 million dollar ad spend.

Maybe that’s cynical, and maybe there’s some truth to it. Maybe it’s both.

Authentic behaviors are vulnerable to second-guessing by observers.

Observers never really know whether actions have occurred for the reasons that organizations claim, or whether these reasons are just post hoc spin. With authentic behaviors (like altruistic behaviors), it’s not hard to find a more base, less noble, instrumental explanation for these actions.

Authentic behaviors operate at two levels– they express real commitments, and they also generate positive reactions from others, because people recognize these authentic  actions as the ‘right thing to do’.  The positive reaction is nice, but it’s not the reason for the action itself.

Would it have been somehow more ‘authentic’ if Zappos had not been public about their mistake and their response?

The estimable Seth Godin, in response to a comment in Jeff Jarvis’s post on Buzz Machine, pointed out that keeping the mistake secret, quietly honoring the prices and working to ensure that word didn’t get out would not have demonstrated Zappos’ commitment to transparency. It would have been inauthentic behavior. Thus, Godin asks, “Why exactly is it wrong for Tony to tweet this, whenever he tweets it?”

Responding to Mistakes, Organizations Demonstrate Their Character

I’m sure that some wise person stated, in a pithy way, that the ways we respond to mistakes demonstrates our real character. This is true for individuals, and for organizations.

Laurel Papworth notes that Zappos’ error — and response — is the kind of mistake that ends up being great for a company’s reputation. In social media “mistakes often make, more than break, a company’s reputation.”

Social Media and Reputation

Social media is important for reputation not just because social media make a mistake more public, but because they make the resolution of that mistake public. Social media allow us to see both the breach and the resolution. Not to mention, social media allow use to see everyone  else’s opinion about the quality of the resolution, amplifying and supporting our own conclusions.

By itself, this particular action by Zappos doesn’t prove that Zappos is an authentic organization. Instead, it’s Zappos’ pattern of actions, over and over, that create an ongoing experience of Zappos as an organization striving to demonstrate its values through its actions.

That’s the kind of authenticity that no amount  of money can buy.

See Also:

(from back before I liked Zappos: If Stephen Colbert were the CEO of Zappos: Explaining a layoff to your employees

Hat tip to @TechDirt for the story.

First it was the Siren.
Then it was the Christmas cards.
For a while, it’s been the original artwork by their very own baristas displayed on the walls..

And now, my favorite Starbucks is getting bouquets of flowers.

On a recent visit, there were two big vases of flowers on the counter by the espresso machine. (You can see in this photo what remains of the bouquets.)

Who would be bringing their Starbucks flowers? I asked the barista.

The first bouquet was from the UPS man. (He comes in five days a week and knows everyone’s name.) He had two bouquets left over on Valentine’s Day, so the UPS driver brought one bouquet to his mom and the other to his favorite Starbucks.

The second vase of roses was from a customer “who just likes us”, explained the barista.

What is it about this Starbucks that inspires customers to bring them flowers?

In a previous post, you suggested that I simply ask the folks who work at this Starbucks what makes it special. However, I was concerned about triggering “the Hawthorne effect”, where folks do a better job simply because they know they’re being observed. But I broke down and told the barista that I’d written a few posts about this Starbucks and was intrigued by the flowers.

The barista brought me over to the espresso bar to meet the District Manager, and I shared with him my thoughts about what was distinctive about this store. (He especially appreciated my pointing out how there was no dust on the espresso machines here, unlike at most Starbucks.)

After sticking my nose in their business for a little bit, I took my latte to a table in the back, near an outlet, and contemplated what might make this Starbucks special.

Data Gathering: Employee Interaction

The District Manager rejoined the Store Manager at the espresso bar and they resumed their conversation. Their conversation was joined off and on by the baristas, who chatted as they pulled shots and zapped pannini.

Watching this relaxed interaction, it occurred to me — maybe it’s the espresso bar itself that helps to create what’s special about this Starbucks?

Look at this photo here. Note that the DM and SM are sitting together, at the bar, facing the baristas’ work area. Notice how the espresso bar is located not in the front of the counter, but around the back and behind the espresso pickup area, across from the sinks, blenders and microwaves.

Even though the managers were having their own conversation, it was easy and natural for baristas to pop in and out of casual conversation with them. At one point, laughter over the baristas reading their horoscopes from a customer’s newspaper caused both me and the writer next to me to look up and smile.

More Data: Customer – Employee Interaction

An hour later the DM was gone and the bar was empty. A customer came in with his computer bag, looking to do some work. Since there were no free tables, he sat down at the espresso bar and pulled out his computer. When a new barista came out from the storeroom and walked behind the bar, the customer looked up from his writing and said hello. They started to chat about his scone and then the customer complimented the barista on her recent weight loss. (What?) Then, an off duty barista sat down with a beverage and chats with another customer. I was starting to see a pattern.

Front stage, Backstage, and in between

Up front at the cash register, the baristas are friendly but their priority is to get your order called and your change correct. At the espresso machine the barista looks you in the eye and hands you your drink, but s/he wants to get it to you promptly. Friendly interaction, to be sure, but not much relationship building.

But back here, at the espresso bar, there is no sense of a ‘transaction’ occurring. Instead, customers and baristas are mingling. People are connecting with each other and relating to each other.

The espresso bar area is neither backstage not frontstage in the store. It is a ‘liminal’ area, where boundaries are blurred.

The espresso bar is not “public space” like the cash register area, and it is not “private space” like the tables and chairs. It’s not a commercial or transactional place. Instead, at the bar the employee-customer interaction is informal, spontaneous, and interpersonal.

I haven’t seen anything like that at the other 3 Starbucks (whch have the same DM, by the way). There, they are friendly, but lacking in that extra je ne sais quoi.

I’ve noted before that it’s the people who make the place authentic. But, in places were all of the people are alike, maybe it is the place itself that triggers another level of authenticity? All of these Starbucks have friendly baristas. But perhaps there is something unique to this place that helps bring out the authentic in the people?

Could it be something as simple as the espresso bar? Do you think that this little, physical tweak that lets customers and employees interact in non-commercial ways is what makes it possible for the employees — and customers– to be more authentic, and to create something ‘special’?

What’s your sense of this?

See also:
What’s going on at my favorite Starbucks?
Can a Starbucks touch your soul?
The People Make the Place Authentic

Dared by GaryVee, inspired by Dr.Bret and Dave Rendall, and zen-ed out by Jonathan Fields, I’m posting my first vlog. As writers know, although “the first draft is always the worst” that’s no reason not to write. Or to vlog. Or to pick up the phone and call the Executive Vice President. Which was what I did.

So here is the story of:

The Phone Call That Changed My Life from cv harquail on Vimeo.

I love it when basic business science can be applied to important causes. So, I was excited when my favorite FemaleScienceProfessor pointed me towards a clever website designed to teach about gender bias: The Gender Bias Learning Project.

The Gender Bias Learning Project is a great demonstration of how basic web skills, clever marketing skills, and thoughtful branding can be used for higher causes.

The Gender Bias Learning Project is a full-featured website with games, videos, interactive quizzes, clear graphics and a built in sense of irony.

The game and overall site developed from a collaboration between BayCreative and the Center for WorkLifeLaw at UCHastings. BayCreative, Inc., a full-service marketing agency, is “a nimble, results-oriented firm”. From the looks of the game and the overall site, BayCreative really delivers on their firm’s brand promise.

Engaging Learning

We all know that gender bias isn’t “funny” and that most feminists anti-gender-bias advocates are dour and humorless. That’s why the idea of turning learning about bias into a game is the first great application of branding expertise: If it has to be nutritious, make it delicious.

Although some parts of the site are serious, and some elements are ever-so-slightly dorky, overall the website is ‘light’ enough that it is pretty engaging. I watched some of the videos and I played spent my latte break testing my knowledge with the pop quiz “Sure, I Get It!”

(11 for 11, I’ll have you know. And even though I did teach Women’s Studies, I learned some new things about gender bias.)

What’s great about Bias Bingo

The standout element of the website is the game, Bias Bingo. Bias Bingo will look familiar to anyone who’s gamed played games of  irony-plus-insight. (Examples of this game genre include The ASA bingo game for sociologists, White Liberal Bingo, and Phat: The Game of White Appropriation).

But, Bias Bingo is a little bit special. Bias Bingo has two built-in advanced learning levels:

(1) Bias Bingo collects data about people’s actual experiences with gender bias, which can be shared with others. And,

(2) Bias Bingo makes you look for real-life examples– you know, the kind of examples that demonstrate that something like ‘gender bias in academe’ actually exists.

Beyond basic branding

There’s even an actual prize at the end of the game.

If you can make it through the buzz kill that is generated by writing out examples of your own experience of bias (no easy feat, I assure you), you can win a free T shirt! The T-shirt announces to all your skill at the game of Bias Bingo.

And, in another brilliant, brand-extending move, the T-shirt creates a brand community. Wearing the T-shirt makes you a brand advocate. It creates community interaction by inviting people to ask you about your experience with Bias Bingo and to play the game themselves.

Clever marketing. I hope it goes viral.

Create the missing tagline

However, there is one piece missing to this marketing strategy… Bias Bingo has no tag line. The game needs a pithy, polysemous, memorable phrase to complete its branding portfolio.

Let’s make “Create the missing tagline” the next Bias Learning Game  ….  I’ll start first with a tagline idea:

“Sexism. The problem that now has a game.”

Your turn…  Add your suggestions in the comments, below, and I’ll send them off to the scholars at The Gender Bias Learning Project.

See Also:
New Game Plays on Women’s Experience of Bias in Academe by Robin Wilson in The Chronicle of Higher Ed
Bias Bingo! at FemaleScienceProfessor
Gender Bias Bingo at Discover

When an organization is being authentic, you can feel it. Even when its character is being expressed in a very small way, or through a very small action, an organization’s expression of its authentic self can touch your soul.

I was reminded of the power of small, authentic acts to touch your soul while I was reading Ryan Jones’ recent post “Pearl Jam, Seattle Movements & Lack of Purpose“. (Ryan blogs at M Cause, about marketing & brands, causes, and purpose.) Describing a gap he saw there between ‘creating a movement’ and ‘having a purpose’, Ryan writes:

Starbucks, for example, is a Seattle brand that doesn’t just want to be a brand…it wants to be a movement. Starbucks wants to “align with one of the greatest movements towards finding a connection with your soul.”

I’m a big fan of Starbucks coffee and I enjoy hanging out there with a great cup of joe and my laptop in tow, but I’m not sure that I would say that it has touched my soul lately.

Ryan’s comment made me chuckle–

Who ever thinks of big corporate coffee giant Starbucks as touching your soul?

In the big picture, I reckon that Starbucks is trying to touch my soul and the souls of its other customers. They certainly seem to be trying hard with all their social media efforts. They know that their business is not ‘all about the coffee’ anymore.

Still, I’m not “feeling the love” from any of their corporate initatives. Sure, I’m happy that the Anniversary Blend is back, and that my husband can get his pumpkin spice latte. And, in theory, I’m happy that Via is now available nationwide so that I will never be completely without a safety net.

But touching my soul? I don’t think so.

Except that recently, a Starbucks DID touch my soul.

In fact, it touched my soul noticeably enough that I whipped out my trusty iPhone and took some shots. (espresso pun there)

Check out this display at my favorite “I’m here to work” Starbucks.

This is a party favor left over from a celebration for a departing store manager. (She got promoted.)

One of the baristas made this, and they all took turns getting their pictures takes as the Starbucks Siren. Then, they left it up in the store (for about 2 weeks) and invited customers to get their pictures taken as the Siren.

I was having a bad hair day so I declined to get my photo taken, but I did take one for the woman behind me in line. She and I – and the barista behind the counter — had one of those “moments” where we were laughing about our mutual espresso addictions and just being together in this ‘third place’.

Why did this experience touch me?

Not too read too much into it, but I enjoyed how the Starbucks Siren let each barista and each customer “be” a part of Starbucks, even for a moment.

I’m not completely sure what that did for me, but I know that I enjoyed the idea that the baristas and the customers had fun with this. The experience surrounding the Siren felt “real” to me, because I knew that one of the baristas had made it, that it was intended for employees, that it was instead shared with customers, and that it was “about” the organization.

Can you think of anything else that would explain why this stuck with me, in a positive way?

I’d love your thoughts on this….

You will read many stories today recounting the heroism and the losses experienced eight years ago. We know now how many individuals and organizations rose up to help victims of the WTC & Pentagon attacks, and how individually and collectively  our responses to the 9/11 tragedy revealed important goodness deep within us.

Every year at this time my friends and neighbors remember who we lost, and what we lost, that day. (I live just outside NYC in a community hit hard by the WTC attacks.) Some of us lost big things – best friends, family, colleagues, organizations. Others lost smaller things, like briefcases, laptops, and family photos.

What I want to share today is the story of how two different organizations – business schools- responded to a loss experienced by one of their alumni.

A small-ish material loss

On 9/11, this alumnus lost many important people whom he could never replace. He lost a large part of a job and an organization he loved. He also lost some material things, among them his business school diplomas. They hung on the wall of his office in one of the towers, and were destroyed in the attacks.

A few months after 9/11, when this alumnus was moving back into a new office, he decided he wanted to replace his diplomas. He contacted the two business schools where he got his BBA and his MBA, told them how he lost his diplomas, and asked if he could get replacement diplomas.

Two different responses

How these two different business schools responded to his request for replacement diplomas tell us something interesting about the values of each school.

School #1 showed that they cared.

School #1, where this alumnus got his BBA, went to great lengths to replace the diploma with something as close to the ‘real’ thing as possible. Not only did the business school print a diploma with the correct names and dates, but also this school tracked down both the Dean of the Business School and the University President who had signed the original diploma. (Both of these men had moved on to other positions). This alumnus got a replacement diploma signed by the academics who led the school while he was a student there. And, they sent the diploma to him in an elegant frame.

School #2 showed something else.

School #2, where this graduate got his MBA, responded differently. When they made diplomas for the spring graduating class, they printed and signed an ‘extra one’ and sent it to the alum. A few weeks later, they also sent him a bill for around $200, to pay for the replacement.

True values showed through

Can you imagine which diploma has more positive meaning to this alumnus now?

My bet is that it’s the diploma of the school that actually care about him. The school that recognized  his greater losses and his lesser material losses, and tried in its own way to help him with both.

And a reflection

This story, while true, in no way captures the true depth or meaning of this alum’s loss. This particular piece of this person’s experience is almost trivial when held next to other losses and other responses that this person and others experienced that day. For this reason I alone wondered whether to share the story. Also, I know from my own experience that the closer a person was and is to this tragedy, the less likely you can imagine or predict how it feels now and how it felt then, and then know how best to bear witness to their experience. Sometimes, too, the more public reflections on this day encroach upon the experiences of people whose grief is more direct, more personal and more private.

Bearing witness to loss, as individuals and organizations, is a way to reflect and to reflect on what matters most to us.  My sense from this story is that one organization but not the other was able to bear witness to a small, small part of this alum’s loss, and in that way to affirm its values through its actions.

Years of following industries that create culture have left me with a special fondness for book publishers. Year after year, season after season, page after page, book publishers create objects that convey what I love most — great ideas. Increasingly, book publishers do this in an embattled industry, towards a customer base with a dwindling interest in books per se and especially in books that challenge them.

Every book publisher as struggled to cope with the changing marketplace, some by consolidating and/or dropping imprints, others by dropping categories and genres of writing, and still others by seeking bestsellers instead of ‘important works’ for influential yet small groups of readers.

And then…

And then there are the brave publishers, the publishing companies with their own agendas. The publishers that are out there to change the world. The publishers like Berrett-Koehler.

Berrett-Koehler has always been a publisher that I’ve admired. One of the first books Berrett-Koehler published was written by my dissertation adviser Taylor Cox (then a mere assistant professor), on a topic that was obscure  at the time: Cultural Diversity in Organizations.

While the book was in its final revisions, I had the chance to sit in on a meeting between Taylor and Steve Piersanti, the founder of Berrett-Koehler. I was impressed by the way they were collaborating to resolve various issues around not only the content but also the promotion plans for the book. It was as surprise to me, since I’d expected the conversation to be more adversarial. Instead, it was completely win-win.

Ever since, I’ve admired Berrett-Koehler for the increasing ‘daringness’ of their ‘list’.

They were one of the first publishing firms to take on the task of creating a market for books about making the world a better place through business. They took (and still take) a very different approach to their work, trying to create a process that works fairly for all stakeholders– authors, publishers, readers, publicists & booksellers.

A few years ago at the Academy of Management meeting I had a long conversation with the B-K employee in charge of their booth in the exhibition hall. I’d noticed on display a new book by one of my OD colleagues from my years at P&G, and I asked the staffer about it. She told me that they’d just had the author in the San Francisco office to give a workshop for all of the Berrett-Koehler staff. Berrett-Koehler believed in the author, her message and her tactics so much that they wanted their own staff to have the benefit of the author’s consulting.

This struck me as a real mark of authenticity.
It’s behavior often called “eating your own dog food.”

Since then, I’ve been on the lookout for more ways that Berrett-Koehler eats its own dog food, and puts into practice the very ideas that it promotes in the books it publishes. And just last week, I literally stumbled on a great inside source: One of Berrett-Koehler’s summer interns is blogging about what it’s like to work there, and what she’s actually doing within the firm.

Rachel Kador is a summer intern at Berrett-Koehler, whose responsibilities range from creating data bases to reviewing book proposals. As interns are promised but seldom experience, Rachel has real opportunities not only to look inside the publishing business but also to participate in it. From Rachel’s blog, I’ve learned about one practice that is both small and significant at the same time. (Like something with a beta of 0.036, and an R2 of .79, for you non-qualitative types).

Rachel Kador writes about one responsibility she’s been given that demonstrates in many ways that Berrett-Koehler lives out its values. Rachel is responsible for telephoning authors who have sent in unsolicited book proposals to tell them that their proposals are not being accepted. Rachel is expected to give each author specific information about why their book is not right for Berrett-Koehler and to offer helpful suggestions where she can.

To get a sense of how this matters, think about the number of people who want to write business books. Think about the number of book proposals they send out, and to how many different publishers. Think about how deep the pile is of unsolicited book proposals, and consider how many end up in the recycling pile, most often without even a cursory trip home in any editor’s NPR totebag.

Why is this interesting? Think of how rare this behavior is, at so many levels:

Berrett-Koehler is reaching out to people who have without invitation given the firm more work to do. Like the other publishers to whom these proposals have been sent, B-K has no relationship with these authors and no obligation to them. However, Berrett-Koehler  feels compelled to respond. As Rachel explains:

Certainly it would be easier to send a form letter (or no letter at all) but that kind of action doesn’t fit into the Berrett-Koehler mission of community building.

Berrett-Koehler asks Rachel to give the potential authors real feedback specific to their proposal. She’s not to execute a simple brush off, or drone on and on from a scripted explanation. She is to tell them something unique and real.

Moreover, Rachel is expected to make a person-to-person connection with the hopeful author, and to engage in a two-way conversation that shares not only information but also shares emotions ranging from politeness to empathy.

And, Rachel is given the authority to deliver the information without supervision.

Sure, you could say “yeah, they dumped that dirty job on the summer intern.”  And at the same time, you can also see what a learning opportunity it could be for her. Rachel has to explain her own rationale for rejecting the proposal, to the very person whose work is being rejected. It is a learning opportunity for her as a potential editor and business person. And, it is an expression of Berrett-Koehler’s confidence in their intern.

This responsibility to contact hopeful authors is explained to Rachel as something important to the firm and to its mission. She has been asked to represent the firm and to demonstrate what distinguishes B-K from other publishers.

But the most important things is that this action, by Rachel or any other employee of Berrett-Koehler, puts into practice one of the reasons why this firm was begun. As Rachel describes in a post about her onboarding conversation with Steve:

(Steve’s) goal in founding this company was to creating a publishing company with balance among its employees, authors, stakeholder groups, and customers.

Not only is the relationship between permanent staff and volunteer intern staff ‘balanced’ so that responsibility and learning is shared, but also the power dynamic between the firm and their potential authors/clients is balanced, so that both parties feel recognized and respected.

The same outcome that I saw 20 years ago (with a book and author that profoundly shifted diversity scholarship and went on to win awards) is being achieved, over and over, every time a proposal is rejected.

Berrett-Koehler’s identity and values are being demonstrated every time,

… not because the CEO believes in them, or because the intern believes in them, but because the organization puts them into practice by its very way of doing business.

If you get caring, personal feedback when your book proposal is rejected by Berrett-Koehler, just imagine what it might be like when a proposal is accepted…?

What resources can organizations draw on to create and sustain an authentic sense of “who they are”?

My class with the Darden EMBA students on Saturday danced around the questions of “How do organizations ‘source’ their identity? and “How do organizations sustain their authenticity?” Even though we had a chance to discuss many other issues in depth, these two questions remained unanswered. Given another 90 minutes, I’m sure we’d have hit them and hit them hard, but … As it was I had to console myself with glimmers of that conversation sprinkled among the students’ comments on a blog post they read in preparation for the class: Can an employee be “too authentic”?

Here are some of their insights…

An important way that organizations sustain their authenticity is through their members.

Organizations draw on members’ identities, on members’ commitments, and on members’ experiences to source their identity. This makes a whole lot of sense. After all, can an organization as an entity be something much different from the collective attributes of its members?

“Being” the Attribute

Members and employees are an important resource for their organization’s identity. When we think about employees being a resource, we usually think that the employees themselves must possess or demonstrate the actual attributes. So, in the extreme sports media organization referred to in Can an employee be “too authentic”?, employees who are skaters themselves are thought to have important attributes and qualities, which the organization then uses as a resource for its own identity. Because the members have the attributes in real life, people feel comfortable with the authenticity of the organization as a ‘skater’ organization.

“Understanding” the Attribute

But there are other ways that organization members can deliver these attributes within an organization. Members can serve as resources for the organization’s attributes if these members deeply know what it means to be these attributes. This ‘granny on a skateboard’ doesn’t have to risk a broken hip to understand what extreme sportspeople are all about, right?

A member who no longer skates but once did, or a member who never skated but has immersed herself in skater culture, someone who has listened to proskaters describe their experiences and frustrations, and who has talked openly with new skaters about their learning and their excitements, can also be a resource for the organization’s authenticity as a ‘skater’ organization.

Why do we prioritize “being” over “understanding” as a resource for authenticity?

We are usually less comfortable with claims of authenticity that arise from understanding rather than from being. We tend to prioritize “being” something as more real than “knowing” something. This is due I think to our recognition that behavior matters more than words when it comes to defining who we are (i.e., we are more like what we do than we are like what we say.) And, I think it also reflects just how hard it can be to understand what it means to ‘be’ something, whether or not you have that attribute yourself.

But, taking this approach denies at least two important features of people who understand a community, an experience, or an attribute that is part of ‘who the organization is’.

1. People who understand are often more able to articulate, communicate, share, teach, and apply an attribute than people who “are”.

2. Just because you can ‘be’ something it doesn’t mean you understand it.

It’s the power of meta-cognition… meta-cognition is the ability to reflect on something from a bit of a critical distance. People who ‘are’ skaters may or may not have meta-cognition about extreme sports… some can draw on their own experience to communicate with others (see comments by Eric & Rachel). However, people who understand skaters always have meta-cognition about extreme sports.

The students’ conversation also focused on involvement in the community (where the community is the group of people that uses the product) as a resource for authenticity. Implicitly, they see involvement as a pathway to understanding what it means to be something.

Involvement can occur through direct participation as a ‘community member +organization member’ (a dual role similar to the brandividual) and also through a more consultative, deep listening kind of participation (like the medical professionals that Lori & Jackson mention). Gautam offers an example of the kind of insight one can have by working closely with people who are authentic through participation, describing how his close shadowing of “solid waste handlers’ in India allowed him to recognize the emotional and social impacts of solid waste handling, that might have been overlooked by someone who was less willing to listen and learn.

Brand Vivants vs. Brand Savants (TM)

When I’ve talked about living the brand, I’ve argued that You don’t have to ‘live the brand’ to give the brand.

Organization members can understand the brand without having to internalize the brand’s attributes or even just acting like they have. Both “brand vivants“– those who live the brand, and “brand savants” – those who understand the brand, can create products, services and organizational processes that deliver the brand to the consumer.

The same is true with regard to the attributes that define the organization. Not everybody has to “be” these attributes for the organization to be said to have these attributes authentically. It seems kind of contradictory to say that an organization as an entity can have/be something that does not define all of its members… but what matters most is whether these attributes are designed into the organization and its systems.

“Designing in” an identity attribute can happen coincidentally through having lots of people perform an attribute by being it, and it can happen intentionally when people who understand an attribute create systems to sustain it. An authentic organization needs both kinds of members.

GoGrannyGo by Andrewrandall
Photo of Tony Hawk from Go Shake or Go Home Blog